While listening to the October 2024 Town Hall meeting, I noted that there was discussion of a section of road that had not received maintenance for 27 years. Instead of investigating the underlying reasons and determining whether this was our responsibility, Jon Centanni decided it was appropriate to allocate $15,000 for a project to repair the road for an individual, simply because he felt sympathy for him.
Our non-profit status is intended to provide us with tax exemption, not to function as a charity.
If, for any reason, the maintenance of this section was indeed the responsibility of the association, then we should certainly allocate the funds to rectify the situation. However, some investigation should have been conducted prior to the Board of Directors approving a special project involving such a significant expense.
From the research I have conducted, the easement terminates 67 feet onto this individual’s private property. Why did we allocate $15,000 of association dues to repair a bridge across a wash leading to private property, was this our obligation?
Mr. Centanni mentions that it is only 500 feet, then states it is 500 yards. Why are we financing the construction of a bridge for this individual to access their property? Are we all entitled to have bridges built over our washes to access our properties if we so desire? Did they change the flow of the floodplain by creating some type of road in this wash? Furthermore, when Sharon Horton Kelly discusses this matter, she claims it is 400 feet. What was the actual project specifications and did they get approval from Flood Control before potentially diverting the path of water flow?
Moreover, the property for which we expended $15,000 in association dues to construct a “bridge” for access appears to be in violation of County Codes as well as the CC&Rs. Did the Board of Directors report this individual for residing on their property without a septic system for over 20 years? Did they impose fines for all the CC&R violations?
I believe this situation reflects gross negligence in the expenditure of our funds, as proper due diligence was not performed prior to allocating such a substantial expenditure. It seems common practice to expend large sums of association dues without properly researching the projects.
In this post I want to cover some things in the September 16, 2024 meeting that I did not cover in The Flock Cameras post.
Please be aware that I am gathering all of this information after reviewing the Zoom meetings I requested from other owners, as Property Management does not retain them. As of this September meeting, I have not yet attended any meetings or engaged in any Association business. I am completely unaware of the Flock Cameras or any other developments within the Association. I did not receive the email from an owner informing us about the cameras until November 8, 2024. So to be labeled a “troublemaker” immediately by the President , Mr. Hooper when voicing any concern was quite vexing.
I have previously mentioned how they postponed the Website and proceeded to approve the Flock Cameras. However, one aspect that I found intriguing from that September meeting was the conversation about notifying owners..
We find ourselves in the year 2025, and there exists an abundance of platforms designed to assist in managing your contact list, far exceeding what one could possibly count. Listening to their discussions, one might assume we are still in 1997. Why is there a necessity for a staff member to cross-reference emails? It is 2025! Accessing AppFolio requires email registration. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that anyone registered with AppFolio also has an email registered with the Association. They present the task of communicating with members as if it were comparable to conquering the Himalayan Mountains! Provide me with the information, and within a week, I can devise a plan and compile a list of individuals who are and are not registered with emails. Allow me a month, and I can obtain an accurate count of local residents, distinguishing between part-time and full-time status. The sole reason this task remains unaccomplished is that those assigned to it are either incompetent or unwilling. However, this is not due to a lack of tools and resources available to facilitate the process. If they cannot even manage our owners’ list with effective communication, how can we be expected to trust them with more significant matters?
(250 estimated residents of the 2,000+/- members and they wanted to spend $50,000 in member dues to “protect” them with Flock Cameras, but notifying ALL members is a budget issue?)
Was this ever finalized? A motion was made and a vote took place to distribute a mailer requesting all owners to submit their email addresses to guarantee they were receiving all notifications. Did this ever occur? Did the property management follow through with this? They certainly did not appear to be very enthusiastic about it. This was 9 months ago; has anyone received a mailer from the Association requesting an updated email to ensure you are receiving all communications?
Mr. Hooper enjoys discussing the survey that was completed in 2022. Therefore, let us delve into that survey. In January, I posed a series of questions to the Board of Directors and Property Management concerning the survey. Naturally, none of my inquiries received a response.
Was an external firm engaged to conduct this survey and share the findings? If so, what is the name of that firm?
If an external firm was involved, did the Board of Directors review and approve the survey results prior to their publication?
If no external firm was utilized, who was accountable for gathering the data, preparing the document, and publishing it?
Surely, if Mohave County sought the data you collected, they would be interested in understanding the process by which you gathered and populated the information. Effective dissemination of data necessitates meticulous planning to ensure that the information is conveyed in a clear, concise, and accessible manner. It is reasonable to assume that the County conducted their due diligence and investigated the methods you employed to generate your survey. Perhaps you could share the name of the individual at the County to whom you provided this information and clarify how they plan to utilize it? Based on my observations, there are concerns regarding the accuracy of the information, particularly considering it was derived from the responses of only 458 members out of a total of 2,280.
We are returning to the website now, and I am attempting to post the clips in chronological order.
During the discussion about the website before it was tabled to move on to Flock, Mr. Hooper mentioned having “back door” access to a site called centerpointecommunity.com and the ability to utilize it for hosting the website. It is inappropriate for the current President to imply that he wants control over the Association’s hosting domain. This would grant him, as an individual, complete authority over the access and management of the Property Association’s website and its information. I examined centerpointcommunity.com, and it seems that Mr. Hooper made an effort to establish something for our community there when he was elected four years ago. However, we are an Arizona community, and this website caters to businesses in California and Nevada. Why is our community included there, and why is it featured on a site intended for business connections? We are a nonprofit Property Owners Association, and our primary objective is to manage and maintain our roads, not to generate profit for individuals.
We conclude with a clip featuring an owner detailing the pricing of the Flock Camera contract. Was this owner, an individual who was not elected, the one who negotiated the contract with Flock? Were they involved in the executive meeting that addressed the pricing and contract? They appear to possess a significant amount of information that other owners did not have access to. Was the board sharing confidential information with select owners or permitting them to negotiate contracts on behalf of the Association without the proper authority to do so?
Transparency, communication, and the dissemination of information are all aspects that I observe the Property Management and the Board of Directors do not appear to prioritize! One must consider how it has been able to function in this manner for so many years; what is the common factor? The one constant that I notice is the presence of the Property Management company.
Just a reminder that I haven’t attended any Association Board meetings as of August 2024. These meetings occurred before I was even aware of the discussions taking place among the Board of Directors, Property Management, and any property owners who bravely voiced their concerns about the unethical practices of the Association.
We will start with the August 19, 2024 meeting.
Regardless of Mr. Hooper’s personal sentiments regarding racism or bigotry, it is inappropriate for him to express them during an Association Board meeting in his capacity as President.
Why is the community constantly in conflict? The issues occurring within the community are a direct consequence of its leadership. Rather than reflecting on your own actions and considering what you, as elected leaders, can do to effect change, you choose to blame any member who dares to highlight the hypocrisy, discrimination, bigotry, potential racism, and unethical behavior. Such individuals are branded as “troublemakers” or “problem owners” for expressing valid concerns. Instead of taking corrective measures and striving to enhance communication with the community, you resort to suppressing their voices beneath layers of bureaucracy and control.
Mr. Hooper’s labeling of owners who voice their concerns about the current operations is indeed questionable. Referring to it as “Facebook mentality” or describing it as a “complaining place” is concerning. As the President of the Board of Directors, it is your responsibility to listen to the members and address their issues, even if you perceive their feedback as mere “complaining”. Your conduct and treatment of owners who do not align with your every idea and decision reflect an authoritarian approach, akin to that of a dictator, rather than that of a community leader striving to promote open communication.
The lack of committees that involve members is yet another area of concern. If committee operations are so burdensome, why not seek volunteers from the community? I have observed many members expressing a wish to participate in committees, yet this Board of Directors consistently declines to establish any committees that permit community input and engagement. They seem intent on maintaining complete control!
I believe the primary concern Mr. Hooper possesses is the fear of being uncovered. This is the reason there has been minimal effort to engage our approximately 2,000 members. If all those individuals had been paying attention, I am convinced we would have undoubtedly faced repercussions by now.
In the upcoming post, I will analyze certain aspects of the September 2024 meeting that were not addressed in the Flock Cameras post.
Let us analyze the Cease and Desist that either the Board of Directors or Property Management Company has misused our association dues on. Honestly, who knows who’s pulling whose strings these days.
The Reference: What is the reason for this letter to mention the Santa Fe Ranch Property Owners Association, Breach of Duty, and Code of Conduct? My sole responsibility to the Property Association is to pay my dues and comply with the CC&R’s. Which specific “Code of Conduct” have I allegedly violated?
The attempt to intimidate me in order to silence my voice through a baseless claim regarding the Intellectual Property of a domain name should raise concerns among all owners. How much of our funds will the Board of Directors and/or Property Management squander in pursuing a futile endeavor?
Additionally, the letter vaguely threatens legal action for defamation, which is yet another baseless accusation. However, how much will our Board of Directors and/or Property Management expend on legal fees using our association dues in their efforts to suppress me and others like me? Let there be no doubt, this is merely the initial act of a performance in which we are all involved.
Another noteworthy point is the claim that the Association holds the rights to the letters SFRPOA. I personally find that to be complete nonsense. If I challenge this, the outcome will likely be that the association members will face exorbitant legal fees. It is important to remember that a lawyer typically receives payment regardless of the outcome. My costs will be reimbursed by the association when they lose the lawsuit, but who will ultimately bear the financial burden? We will, as the Management Company and/or the Board of Directors have no reservations about utilizing our dues to uphold their authority.
I have suggested an alternative to the association, not because they have any valid grounds for their claim or because I am concerned about the legality of my domain. I simply do not wish to financially ruin the Property Association, as many of you rely on it for the upkeep of your roads.
Our association boasts more than 2,000 members, and both the Board of Directors and Property Management depend on limited engagement and supervision to ensure their deceptive activities proceed without interruption.
Once I receive confirmation from the legal advisor of the Board, I will move forward with transferring the blog to http://www.sfrpoasucks.com. This step is not mandatory; instead, it is a preemptive action to safeguard our association dues from being squandered. It seems that your Board of Directors plans to exploit these resources for their own personal vendetta.
Please understand that the sole reason I am open to changing the name is to prevent Association Members from incurring additional expenses on unnecessary legal advice.
We will maintain simplicity in this matter. Inquire with your Board of Directors regarding the total amount they have expended on legal fees in an attempt to silence members?
We concluded with our previous member board meeting on May 19, 2025. If you were not attentive, you might have anticipated the subsequent meeting to occur on August 18, 2025.
However, as I mentioned in the last video, they had already arranged to surprise the members with a meeting on June 5, 2025, regarding a zoning change request submitted by a member of the association. Perhaps this is why they conveniently omitted the member “code of conduct” from the agenda.
Now, consider this: if this were merely the board of directors addressing a member’s request for a zoning change on their property to pursue a business venture and any concerns the community might have, the situation would have been entirely different.
In this case, however, we are dealing with a former board member, Chuck Bennett, who has been running an illegal campground on his property for the past five years and is a close personal associate of the current President of the POA, Mr. Robert Hooper.
Not only has this campground been operating in violation of the appropriate zoning ordinances, but it has also been functioning without the necessary licenses and inspections from the Arizona Department of Health for FIVE YEARS! Furthermore, they actively advertise on a camping website called HipCamp, which promotes a policy that contravenes the Mohave County Campground Rules & Regulations.
The illegal operation of this campground should not have even been included as an item on the agenda of our property association. Yet, due to the close friendship between Mr. Hooper and Mr. Bennett, he was permitted to present and advocate for his illegal business to be approved for a zoning change. The boards decision to stay silent at the zoning hearing is telling. Carol Wilk, the Secretary on the Board of Directors did decide to appear at the zoning meeting and speak. that can be watched here at 3:00:50: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Xh4FbuaHyc&t=1813shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Xh4FbuaHyc&t=1813s
Mr. Hooper made several remarks that could be interpreted as attempts at intimidation.
Both Robert Hooper and Chuck Bennett frequently reference the Dutch Flat Plan and the commercial allowances already established in that plan, which are now part of the Mohave General Plan. However, during the Planning and Zoning meeting on June 11, 2025 the new recommendations for the 2025 Mohave General Plan suggest the removal of commercial allowances along Alamo Road within the Dutch Flat Plan, based on discussions with the community.
Regarding the members’ “Code of Conduct,” the document is inadequately composed and grants the “chairperson” (Robert Hooper) excessive authority to silence individuals. He even wants to police us on the roadways! They actually planned to conduct the meeting on June 5th to review and approve this document and did not intend to distribute a written copy to the members. We only obtained it on June 2, 2025, because several of us had reached out to property management, voicing our concerns about the unethical nature of convening a special meeting to discuss and approve a document that was intended to grant authority to impose fines on members without our prior knowledge of its contents.
The duration of this video is one hour and seven minutes. While I could have condensed it, I believe it is crucial for viewers to witness the toxic behavior exhibited by Mr. Hooper.
He seems to struggle significantly with criticism and cannot tolerate any feedback regarding the Board or himself that does not consist of unqualified praise.
The inability to manage his emotions leads him to react aggressively when confronted, as seen in this video. In my opinion this individual is unfit for a position of authority or leadership. He lacks the necessary skills to handle conflict or to lead by example. His desire is to control and dictate. If he disagrees with your comments, regardless of their validity, you will be silenced.
It has become exceedingly clear to me, after reviewing all the footage, that the property management team and board of directors will express what they believe is necessary based on their audience, rather than adhering to the actual rules, regulations, and guidelines. Observing every video reveals that your identity influences the responses you receive and the treatment you endure. This is probably the reason they prefer not to involve all 2,000+/- members. It significantly complicates the ability to conceal one’s indiscretions when so many observers are present.
Essentially, we are current until the August meeting, unless they unexpectedly schedule another “Special Meeting” to address some absurd personal agenda of the President or one of his acquaintances. I may post one or two additional updates with further clips, just for fun.
Welcome the the Communist State of Stagecoach Trails at Santa Fe Ranch!
We have recently conducted our annual election. Since John Shea opted not to run, a new member was inevitable.
Fortunately, they were unsuccessful in electing their preferred candidate, Mike Bilbee.
The newly elected Board member is Debi Verkamp, and our first Member Board meeting with this newly elected representative took place on May 19, 2025.
The beginning of the meeting was rather subdued, with everything seemingly operating under a different atmosphere. What caused this change? Who knows, but it appears to be a positive step forward, or at least that was my impression. (It did not last)
It appears that the Board of Directors has decided to establish a Code of Conduct for its board members. Nevertheless, it is troubling that Debi was excluded from the development process and did not contribute any feedback regarding its content. In fact, they utilized association funds to have the association’s legal counsel issue her a letter of intimidation due to her inquiries about it.
In fact, the assertion from property management and Robert Hooper is that the legal counsel for the property association drafted the document and imposed fines on board members for infractions without any consultation with those she is meant to legally represent. If this is accurate, we require a complete overhaul of management, legal counsel, and the board! Who permits their legal representation to create such a document without engaging the Board of Directors? I have reservations about the legal counsel’s actual involvement in drafting this document.
I have removed most of the trivial details. Nevertheless, I still have 43 minutes, which indicates they provided ample material to discuss!
Please remain attentive for Monday’s post about the astonishing Code of Conduct for association members and a Zoning Change that they conveniently omitted from the agenda of the May 19th meeting.
However, they inadvertently revealed that they had already intended to surprise everyone with a “Special Meeting” in June.
What I will express is that if you operate with a defined set of ethics and standards, you would not need to be concerned about making mistakes and being discovered.
Welcome to the Communist State of Stagecoach Trails at Santa Fe Ranch!
Do you remember the Election I previously mentioned? Our goal was to live stream the annual meeting for a considerable number of owners who do not reside locally. However, for reasons that remain unclear, this Board of Directors and Property Management appear to be against participation, despite their claims!
Consequently, we are left with an audio recording they hastily created to prevent us from making our own recording.
We have the Mohave County Supervisor of District 5 addressing the audience. It is uncertain whether he is speaking in his role as a County Supervisor or as a member of the Association. I will leave that for you to ascertain. His remarks begin at 13:28. If you are a cattle rancher in the area, you may find his comments regarding the easements within Santa Fe Ranch particularly significant.
The accolades from the Board’s special speakers commence at 23:30, but you might want to start viewing at 22:00 for a bit of entertainment.
This recording lasts one hour and 22 minutes. If you have the time, I would recommend listening to the entire recording. However, I have provided a breakdown of the timestamps below. It genuinely helps in understanding the situation we are confronting.
23:345 Chuck Bennett
28:30 Mike Servillo, but you may wish to listen between Bennett and Servillo
31:35-33:21 Melissa Layton discussing the election process
33:22 Randall Barrett
36:56 Mike Bilbee (He was not present, but the Board deemed it appropriate to read his statement on his behalf)
38:17 Dan Black (I was a little partial to this one)
39:56 Jon Centanni (Once again, not present but Robert Hooper read his statement)
40:41 Robert Hooper
44:34 Sharon Horton Kelly
45:52 Running Deer Latahotchee
46:47 Warren Peers de Ville
50:27 Debi Verkamp (They are supposed to provide unedited versions, but those surrounding Ron Gould who shouted Democrat at her when she mentioned Washington State, that audio has been removed.)
53:03 Carol Wilk
Subsequently, we witness Robert Hooper needing to issue an apology for a remark directed at an owner. This is just one of many apologies he has had to make at 57:26.
At 59:09, the comments from owners commence.
At 1:00, we hear our first owner comments, and Robert Hooper does not disappoint, starting with a falsehood right from the beginning! Naturally, Chuck Bennet, the former board member who had previously commended them, had much to say regarding the introduction of commercial enterprises to the area. We lack services, medical facilities, fire protection, and utilities, yet he is advocating for business expansion?
It struck me as odd during my first Annual Board Meeting, which was an election, to see the Mohave County Supervisor, Ron Gould present and seemingly at ease with the electoral interference and manipulation taking place, appearing to be not only comfortable but possibly involved in it.
As I mentioned, welcome to the Communist State of Stagecoach Trails at Santa Fe Ranch in Yucca, Arizona!
BUYER BEWARE-Wait until you see what they attempted with a “Code of Conduct”!
Susan Feels Really Peeved Over Abuse 